Preview of MTL new True-Scale coupler system

Joe D'Amato Sep 1, 2016

  1. DCESharkman

    DCESharkman TrainBoard Member

    3,825
    905
    59
    Well it looks like I will stay with the short unimates for the F units. But for the units that will always run together, I can swap out the Accumates. I just ordered a few sets to try.
     
  2. Calzephyr

    Calzephyr TrainBoard Supporter

    3,891
    677
    63
    I guess that I'm perplexed by the new 'N' scale coupler by Micro-trains.
    Many N scalers have converted rolling stock to body mounted "Z" scale couplers because they are more realistic.
    Are these new "N" scale versions anywhere near the size of the "Z" scale couplers... and exactly why are they better than the "Z" couplers?
    My guess is that they are a direct swap for other N scale couplers and fit in the existing coupler boxes without major surgery.
    As noted before... the Unimates were the other coupler of choice for close coupling of locomotives... but required some level of coupler box surgery as well.
    The photos posted so far are not very compelling for buying the new Micro-Trains 'N' Scale coupler.
    The coupling distance improvement may not be so great as to change out "Z" scale or Unimates.
    Granted... the replacement for Accumates is a must do... since Accumates are unreliable and tend to disassemble themselves.
     
  3. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    3,991
    757
    65
    Yeah, my thoughts exactly except I already swapped out the Accumates for MT 1015's. The problem in N scale couplers is that in order to operate the 'action' takes place along the shank. That requires a longer shank and thus the coupling distance problems. The McHenry coupler, with all the action centered in the actual coupler head, offered us some hope but it was only offered in one size and had a shank length the same as the MT and Accumate. It could have been offered in a "T" shank but never was. It also had a major problem with its size. As for the visible spring, painting it black and adding a dab of epoxy would make it less noticeable and prevent loss of the spring. Maybe the technology is not there to make a smaller version of the McHenry or for that matter the older KD #5. So I will stick with the Unimates for my sharks, E and F units and FA/B's. MT 1015 and 2004's for the GP's, SD's and others.
     
  4. DCESharkman

    DCESharkman TrainBoard Member

    3,825
    905
    59
    Don't get me started on the McHenry coupler. They are as bad as the Accumate couplers. I am not so worried about coupling distance as I am about coupler failures. I just ordered a couple of 10 packs for experimentation. They are cheap enough to try, and if I don't like them, or they don't work out, it is not an expensive loss.
     
  5. greatdrivermiles

    greatdrivermiles TrainBoard Member

    655
    374
    24
    Got a few and tried them out.
    Pros: Easy to put together, Less expensive, Looks fantastic
    Cons: almost zero lateral swing(My IM tunnel motors pull each other off the tracks when going onto a siding with a #6 turnout), air hoses are like the springs (if it gets away from you, its permanently lost), Not compatible with anything else.
    Honestly, I wish you (Micro Trains) would just offer the Z scale couplers in the #1015 style coupler boxes.
     
    ridinshotgun likes this.
  6. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    3,991
    757
    65
    That sounds logical but may create problems as MT would in effect be competing against itself with three different N scale couplers. Would the market support three such couplers? At least the Z scale coupler would be compatible with the 1015's.
     
  7. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    2,061
    472
    44
    When you say "siding," are you referring to an "S" shaped path, where after exiting the #6 turnout, the track immediately curves back to parallel the original track? I really hope so, because if not these may be a serious concern. Still not good, but at least understandable. Thanks.
     
  8. RedRiverRR4433

    RedRiverRR4433 TrainBoard Member

    437
    44
    6
    After seeing all the reviews, I plan to continue using the Unimates between "F" units and the MT Z scale #905 coupler on all steam locomotive pilots, rear of tenders and many freight cars. I've been using the MT Z scale #905 couplers for over ten years and the Unimates for at least 15 years. I also use BLMA air hoses on most of my freight cars as well as brass air hoses when I can still find them.

    Staying cool and having fun with it.....:cool::cool:

    Shades
     
  9. greatdrivermiles

    greatdrivermiles TrainBoard Member

    655
    374
    24
    Yes, A standard Passing siding using #6 turnouts. Now since then I widened the coupler pockets on the locos, and left the screw slightly loose (to give the coupler box some swing) and they work fine through the turnout. I'd love to put Z scale couplers on my tunnel motors but the 905's wont fit. Has anyone out there put Z scale couplers on intermountain tunnel motors?
     
  10. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    2,061
    472
    44
    Thanks. Obviously, an S shaped path, especially with the long wheelbase of a tunnel motor, will create the biggest challenges.
     
  11. Tom L

    Tom L TrainBoard Member

    73
    43
    13
    Played around some more with these today and converted my business train to these. The train consists of a Atlas GP-9, a MT troop sleeper (converted to Heater car) and 2 MT heavyweight passenger cars. The couplers on the Geep and heater car are tight, no box swivel, but the mounting pins allow the boxes to swivel on the heavyweights. This will run around my tight turns and peco turnouts no problem. For kicks I restricted the swivel on the heavyweights and they popped right off the track on my curves. Next I'm going to mount them on some Intermountain passenger cars, allowing for the boxes to swivel as well.

    It will be Interesting to see how/if Micro trains "evolves" these into something with more widespread appeal.

    Tom L
    Wellington CO
     
  12. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    2,061
    472
    44
    Do you know what your tightest radii is?
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2016
  13. Tom L

    Tom L TrainBoard Member

    73
    43
    13
    Well, I didn't remember since I laid it a long time ago but I just checked and I have a full 180 degree curve with two tracks, outer is about 13" and the inner is under 12", about 11 3/4". I don't usually run anything long on it as it is a switching lead for a industry. I have converted everything to metal wheels, and I swear I can hear the flanges "squeal" a little on those 3 axle trucks going around that curve!

    Tom L.

    IMG_0653.JPG
     
    FriscoCharlie, hoyden and mtntrainman like this.
  14. urodoji

    urodoji TrainBoard Member

    395
    64
    18
  15. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    3,991
    757
    65
    I would like to see these mounted on MT heavy weight passenger cars to see if they close the coupling distance. If anyone has so mounted them could you please post photos.
     
  16. barlowfaudio

    barlowfaudio TrainBoard Member

    190
    86
    18
    Threw quite a few of these on some of my FVM boxcars. Easy to assemble. Like the look. +1 on the no lateral motion.
     
  17. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    2,061
    472
    44
    Inkaneer. Ryan Wilkerson posted these early in this thread.

     
  18. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    3,991
    757
    65
    Okay, I forgot that he did.
     
  19. Ryan Wilkerson

    Ryan Wilkerson TrainBoard Member

    680
    153
    29
    I used the short shank version. I'm installing the long shank and will retest.
     
  20. RBrodzinsky

    RBrodzinsky Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    5,646
    2,656
    96
    Ryan - were these on the cars we were running in Santa Rosa, with my PRR K4?
     

Share This Page